Harris, Ball Courting Political Isolation

The Prime Minister has spent the early part of the week speaking to European leaders who will clearly not tolerate ill-informed denial of global warming as an international issue. As early as Monday, Harper had obviously got the message, calling climate change “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.”

In this article, the principals from the energy industry lobby group the NRSP mount a heroic, but irrelevant argument suggesting that CO2 is our friend. They write that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere must reach 4,500 parts per million before endangering human life - ignoring entirely the overwhelming evidence of the effect of CO2 on climate.

Aside from the general goofiness of the argument, the most interesting aspect of this article (not counting the snazzy redesign on the Canada Free Press website) is the degree to which the NRSP has distanced itself from all potential political allies. This is not a victory of dogma over delerium, it is proof that, ultimately, science cannot be credibly denied. You have to hope that Tim Ball and Tom Harris (inset) are looking for other work because, increasingly, it appears that this party is over.

Previous Comments

I’m afraid that you’re a little bit optimistic. We should remember that NRSP owes its existence more to its benefactors (big oil) than to the government. We should also recognize that the government has a never-saturating ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth. Thus, NRSP doesn’t need Harper to spread doubt to the public, and Harper probably wishes them success anyway.

I actually brought myself to read their article. It nearly sounded like a scolded child who didn’t get their way. I wish they write more articles like this, it’ll make them even more irrelevant, it’s a wonder anyone even John Dowell can take them seriously.

I think you got a point on the cons though, its all about opportunity, but I dont think the environmental wave of awareness is going away.

Steve, you and other Desmoggers so often repeat that old chestnut about big oil funding that you probably believe it yourself.

Desmog itself says that NRSP will not reveal who funds it, trying to imply there is something sinister about this. Yet you and others keep saying they are funded by big oil. So how do you know this, Steve? Have you found a way to tap into the NRSP database? Or is this just more Desmog fog and BS?

Richard, you might have a look at the NRSP website under menu heading of “News”. Pretty damn impressive, the amount of media activity generated mainly by Harris and Ball. Desmoggers should do so well. The truth is getting out: the science is not settled and there is no consensus.

John: not about the “truth” - which is apparently a religious rather than scientific concept in some minds - but about the NRSP's success in infiltrating small-market media. I wish we had their budget for this stuff.

I agree with you Richard about the religious part. The Rev. Dr. Gore hisself said it is about morality, not science.

The parallels don’t stop there. It is the AGW crowd that has a closed mind and wants to shut down discussion just like religious fanatics try to do when anyone questions their faith. It is the “skeptics” who urge people to keep open minds.

I would like to take credit for NRSP’s success but alas I have nothing to do with other than a small donation a few months back. Maybe the media are waking up to the fact that the science is far from settled and are now trying to inject a little balance into their coverage.

Just wondering, John, but do you have any idea how much you sound like Comical Ali? According to you, the media’s been waking up for months now. How long is it going to take? Even Harper’s been scolding Bush for his inaction, aparently. That should indicate what the climate’s like out here in the real world. Guess you don’t go there much.

As to your hackneyed, facile comments about religion, does it ever occur to you that by your evident standards, anyone holding opinions different than your own, regardless of how they came by them, would be labeled “religious” and therefore invalid? With careless use, the word becomes meaningless, except to disparage others. Do you think that’s in the spirit of open-mindedness and objectivity?

Do you ever think about this? Do you ever expose yourself to the same scrutiny you do others? It doesn’t really matter to me if some inconsequential troll holds backward, hypocritical ideas, but it should matter to you. Do you really want to live in a world of self-imposed ingorance?

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.